Sackman: Meeting to discuss Mazur
The Mazur ruling is further evidence of “a growing case for re-examining the legislative foundations of legal services regulation”, the Ministry of Justice has said.
Sarah Sackman, the minister for courts and legal services, revealed too that last week she convened a meeting of the Legal Services Board (LSB) and the relevant frontline regulators to discuss the impact of Mazur.
She was responding to a letter from justice select committee chair Andy Slaughter MP about the impact of Mazur and the government’s view on the state of legal regulation, especially in light of the view expressed by the committee shortly before last year’s election that the case for re-examining the regulatory framework created by the Legal Services Act 2007 was “growing stronger and stronger”.
Ms Sackman stressed that Mazur had not changed the law – and that regulation of the legal profession was independent of government – but acknowledged “the significant concerns it has raised within parts of the legal profession about how these requirements have been interpreted and applied in practice, and its potential wider implications”.
At the meeting last week, “we discussed the implications of the judgment, the factors that may have contributed to the misapplication or misinterpretation of the law, the actions taken and underway by the regulators, and whether further steps are required”.
She said she was “satisfied that appropriate steps… are being taken” by the various regulators and representative bodies, “but will be closely monitoring whether further action is required”.
It was, she said, “premature to offer a definitive assessment” about the impact of Mazur on the profession.
Ms Sackman added she had “emphasised” to the LSB the importance of completing “swiftly” its review of the advice regulators and representative bodies had previously given lawyers about the reserved legal activity of conducting litigation.
Experts have pointed to the definition of ‘legal representative’ in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), which includes a “solicitor’s employee”, putting it seemingly at odds with the 2007 Act.
Ms Sackman said the Ministry of Justice had raised the issue with the Civil Procedure Rule Committee.
“We agree that the judgment raises a significant set of questions about the clarity of the CPR in this respect… We are committed to ensuring that the rules do not inadvertently mislead practitioners or undermine statutory requirements.”
On the broader question of the regulatory regime, Ms Sackman wrote: “[W]e recognise that the Mazur judgment, alongside recent developments such as the [Post Office] Horizon case and concerns arising from cases such as Axiom Ince and SSB Law Ltd, has affected confidence in aspects of the current regulatory framework.
“While there are mixed views across the sector on wholesale reform, we acknowledge that there is a growing case for re-examining the legislative foundations of legal services regulation. My officials are keeping this under active review and will update the committee on developments.”
This is similar language to that used by the then Conservative Lord Chancellor, Alex Chalk, in response to the committee’s letter.
The committee also called for a review of the LSB. The minister said: “In light of the Prime Minister’s recent announcement on a new regulatory approach, it is essential that we have robust systems in place to oversee the regulation of our legal services.
“The department is currently planning its next cycle of reviews and will consider whether this is an appropriate time to review the LSB.”
Legal Futures has been told that this is likely to go forward.
She added that the ministry had acceded to the request that the new chair of the LSB, when appointed in the coming months, will undergo pre-appointment scrutiny by the committee.
Leave a Comment